Ethical Grounds

The Unofficial Blog of Vermont's Bar Counsel

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • 50 Resolutions
  • CLE: The Garage Videos
  • Family & Friends
  • HELP: Wellness & Well-Being Resources
  • Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Stories from a Bar
  • The #fiveforfriday Quizzes
  • The Professional Responsibility Program
  • This Week’s Posts
  • Trust Accounting & Fees
  • Was That Wrong?
  • Well-Being Week in Law

Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps.

April 8, 2021Michael

Last week I posted about the Florida Bar’s proposed advisory opinion that would authorize lawyers to accept payment for legal fees via mobile apps as long as they protect client confidences and safeguard clients funds. My post focused on the “client confidences” aspect of the proposed opinion.  Today, I’ll address the “safeguard client funds” aspect.  In particular, I’m a fan of two observations made at the very end of the opinion.

Legal Ethics

But first, a quick summary of Vermont’s rules.

V.R.Pr.C. 1.15 is entitled “Safekeeping Property.”  Paragraph (a) requires a lawyer to hold property of clients and third person separate from the lawyer’s own.  Regular readers will recognize this one of the 7 C’s of legal ethics, the anti-commingling rule.  Unearned funds held in connection with a representation must be held in a trust account that is maintained at an approved financial institution.  Finally, a lawyer must comply with the record-keeping requirements in V.R.Pr.C. 1.15A(a).

So, when it comes to safeguarding client funds, what are the issues with mobile payment apps? The proposed Florida opinion identifies several.  I’ll use Venmo as an example for each.

First, it’s important to remember that a Venmo account is not a trust account, or even a bank account at all.  For instance, someone sent me money via Venmo last weekend. That’s money that Venmo took from that person and made available for me to send wherever, including to the checking account I’ve linked to the app.  I’ve not transferred my money anywhere.  Instead, I’ll “leave” it there, available to use whenever I next need to use Venmo to pay someone.

Of course, doing so with client funds as a lawyer wouldn’t cut it. So, the Florida opinion advises:

  • “A payee does not acquire possession—access to and control over—funds transmitted via a payment-processing service until the service makes those funds available in the payee’s account. If the funds are the property of the lawyer, the lawyer may leave those funds in that account or transfer them to another account or payee at the lawyer’s discretion. The lawyer, however, must transfer entrusted funds from the service account into an account at a qualifying banking or credit institution promptly upon their becoming available to the lawyer.”

In other words, it’s okay to set up a Venmo account for your firm to accept payment, but, when payment is received, you must promptly transfer funds that belong to clients or third persons to a trust account at an approved financial institution.  Per the Florida opinion,

  • “By transferring entrusted funds from the service account into a qualified trust account promptly upon acquiring access to and control over those funds, the lawyer complies with the requirement that those funds be kept in a qualified account.”

And therein lies the next issue.

I’ve linked my bank account to my Venmo account.  So, if I want to, I can transfer money available to me in Venmo to my account.  Alas, when it comes to client funds and prompt transfer to a trust account, it might not be so easy.

As the Florida opinion points out, many banks will not allow a lawyer to link a Venmo or other mobile payment service to a trust account. Indeed, while not exactly on point factually, in 2009, a Vermont lawyer was reprimanded for allowing a third-party electronic access to his trust account.  So, if you can’t link your trust account to your mobile payment app, how do you satisfy the requirement of promptly transferring funds to your trust account?  Florida advises:

  • “the lawyer should establish with the banking institution some type of suspense account to which the account established with the payment-processing service can be linked and into which the payments are transferred, then promptly swept into the lawyer’s IOTA account.”

The last issues highlighted by the proposed Florida opinion involve transaction fees and chargebacks.  The opinion cautions lawyers against passing transaction fees on to clients and reminds lawyers to ensure that chargebacks are not assessed against funds held in trust. In my opinion, the latter is especially critical if the chargeback were to invade funds that belong to clients other than the client involved with the chargeback.

Finally, I want to highlight the paragraphs that count me among their fans.  Each appears at the end of the proposed Florida opinion.

I’m certain that there are lawyers out there nitpicking over the fact that even if a lawyer transfers payment from Venmo to the suspense account to the trust account on the same day, technically there will be a brief period when the funds are not, as they say, “in trust.”  To me, the final paragraph of the Florida opinion is for nitpickers:

  • “The Rules of Professional Conduct are ‘rules of reason’ and ‘should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself. When reasonable to do so, the rules should be interpreted to permit lawyers and clients to conduct business in a manner that society has deemed commercially reasonable while still protecting clients’ interests. Permitting lawyers to accept payments via payment-processing services under the conditions expressed in this opinion satisfies those objectives.” (citations omitted).

Indeed.  If the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit digital financial transactions between lawyers and clients, then the answer isn’t to ban such transactions.  The answer is to change the rules.

The other paragraph that I like is the “note” that follows the final paragraph. In it, the committee reminds lawyers that we aren’t going to answer questions like “is Venmo ethical?” Rather, we are going to stress that technology is always evolving and that no matter the technology, the duty remains the same: act competently to safeguard client funds.  As the committee phrased it:

  • “The discussion about specific applications in this opinion is based on the technology as it exists when this opinion is authored and does not purport to address all such available technology. Web-based applications and technology are constantly changing and evolving. A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to become familiar with and stay abreast of the characteristics unique to any application or service that the lawyer is using.”

In other words, competence includes tech competence.

Related Posts:

  • Proposed Florida opinion would allow mobile payment for legal fees (4/2/21)
  • Mobile Payment & Legal Fees (11/12/19)

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr
  • Pocket

Like this:

Like Loading...
Competence, Tech Competence, Trust Account Management

Post navigation

← Monday Morning Answers #224
When a client insists that a lawyer advance frivolous claims. →
Follow Ethical Grounds on WordPress.com

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,055 other followers

Categories

  • Access to Legal Services
  • Addiction
  • Advertising
  • Alternative Business Structures
  • Bar Assistance Program
  • Candor
  • Civility
  • client communication
  • Client Confidences
  • Client Funds
  • Client Protection
  • COLAP
  • Communicating with a Represented Person
  • Communication
  • Competence
  • Conflicts
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Decorum toa Tribunal
  • Diligence
  • Disciplinary Process
  • Duties of a Prosecutor
  • Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel
  • Fee Agreements
  • Fees
  • File Delivery
  • FIve for Friday
  • Flat Fees
  • Frivolous Claims
  • Guest Pass
  • Inadvertent Receipt & Production
  • Lawyer Advertising
  • Lawyer Mindfulness
  • Lawyer Well Being
  • Lawyer Wellness
  • Lawyers Assistance Program
  • Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
  • Leaving a Law Firm
  • Legal Ethics
  • Legal Ethics & Access to Justice
  • License Renewal
  • Mandatory Malpractice Insurance
  • Marijuana
  • Mental Health
  • Monday Morning Answers
  • nonlawyer ownership
  • Online Reputation Management
  • Pro Bono
  • Redesigning Legal
  • Reregulation
  • scams
  • social media
  • Stories from a Bar
  • Substance Abuse
  • Succession Planning
  • Tech Competence
  • Tech Ethics
  • Trial Publicity
  • Trust Account Management
  • Trust Accounting
  • Trust Acounting
  • Truthfulness in Statements to Others
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Vermont Courts Coronavirus
  • Vermont Judiciary COVID-19
  • Wait…what?
  • Was That Wrong
  • Well-Being Week In Law
  • Wellness Wednesday
  • Withdrawal
  • WSYW

Tags

#fiveforfriday #LawyerWellBeingWeek ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services ABA Journal Above The Law ABS Arrested Development Attorney Well-Being Attorney Wellness Barry Zuckerkorn Better Call Saul Bob Loblaw Boston Red Sox Candor to Tribunal Civility client communication client confidences competence Conflicts Conflicts of Interest Contingent Fees Crowdfunding Fees Fee Sharing File Delivery fiveforfriday FIve for Friday Former Client Conflicts Game of Thrones George Costanza Judicial Ethics Kenny Chesney Kramer Larry Bird Lawyers Assistance Program Lawyer Well Being Lawyer Wellness Legal Ethics legal technology Michael Scott Monday Morning Answers Monday Morning Honors My Cousin Vinny Negative Online Reviews North Carolina State Bar No Shoes Nation Prince prmadness Pro Bono Puffery Referral Fees Robert Ambrogi Rule 1.6 Rule 1.9 Rule 4.2 scams Seinfeld social media Suits Taylor Swift Tech Competence Thaddeus Stevens The Kentucky Derby The Office Trust Accounting Trust Account Management trust account scams Uniform Bar Exam Vanilla Ice Vermont Bar Association Vermont Bar Exam Vermont City Marathon Watergate Well-Being Week In Law Wellness Wednesday

Recent Posts

  • Take time to thank a paralegal.
  • Monday Morning Honors #254
  • Five for Friday #254
  • Supreme Court seeks comments on proposed amendments to the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct
  • The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and my self-report of significant bread making violations.

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015

Recent Comments

Lucia White on Take time to thank a para…
Melinda Siel on Take time to thank a para…
Geoffrey Ransom on Monday Morning Honors #25…
rgrunds on Monday Morning Honors #25…
Marilyn Mahusky on The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and…

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Bar Counsel

32 Cherry Street, Suite 213
Burlington, VT 05401
1-802-859-3004

Recent Posts

  • Take time to thank a paralegal.
  • Monday Morning Honors #254
  • Five for Friday #254
  • Supreme Court seeks comments on proposed amendments to the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct
  • The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and my self-report of significant bread making violations.

Recent Comments

Lucia White on Take time to thank a para…
Melinda Siel on Take time to thank a para…
Geoffrey Ransom on Monday Morning Honors #25…
rgrunds on Monday Morning Honors #25…
Marilyn Mahusky on The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and…

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015

Categories

  • Access to Legal Services
  • Addiction
  • Advertising
  • Alternative Business Structures
  • Bar Assistance Program
  • Candor
  • Civility
  • client communication
  • Client Confidences
  • Client Funds
  • Client Protection
  • COLAP
  • Communicating with a Represented Person
  • Communication
  • Competence
  • Conflicts
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Decorum toa Tribunal
  • Diligence
  • Disciplinary Process
  • Duties of a Prosecutor
  • Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel
  • Fee Agreements
  • Fees
  • File Delivery
  • FIve for Friday
  • Flat Fees
  • Frivolous Claims
  • Guest Pass
  • Inadvertent Receipt & Production
  • Lawyer Advertising
  • Lawyer Mindfulness
  • Lawyer Well Being
  • Lawyer Wellness
  • Lawyers Assistance Program
  • Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
  • Leaving a Law Firm
  • Legal Ethics
  • Legal Ethics & Access to Justice
  • License Renewal
  • Mandatory Malpractice Insurance
  • Marijuana
  • Mental Health
  • Monday Morning Answers
  • nonlawyer ownership
  • Online Reputation Management
  • Pro Bono
  • Redesigning Legal
  • Reregulation
  • scams
  • social media
  • Stories from a Bar
  • Substance Abuse
  • Succession Planning
  • Tech Competence
  • Tech Ethics
  • Trial Publicity
  • Trust Account Management
  • Trust Accounting
  • Trust Acounting
  • Truthfulness in Statements to Others
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Vermont Courts Coronavirus
  • Vermont Judiciary COVID-19
  • Wait…what?
  • Was That Wrong
  • Well-Being Week In Law
  • Wellness Wednesday
  • Withdrawal
  • WSYW

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • Ethical Grounds
    • Join 1,055 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ethical Grounds
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    %d bloggers like this: